Multi-layer locate-then-edit methods for knowledge editing first optimize target residual-stream activations (anchors) at selected layers, then realize them layer by layer as weight updates. This pipeline optimizes an intermediate representation but deploys multi-layer weight updates whose joint effect through the true forward pass is never itself optimized: regardless of how anchors are set or propagated, each update comes from a local solve, so propagation-induced attenuation and distortion go uncorrected, leaving a closure gap between anchor targets and realized edits. We propose DOW-KE, an anchor-free method built on a single principle: what is optimized must be exactly what is deployed. DOW-KE backpropagates the final editing objective through the complete model, jointly optimizing the updates of all edited layers so cross-layer propagation and coupling enter every gradient step. The same principle dictates where preservation resides: embedding the preservation projection in the update parameterization, inside the computation graph, makes every gradient act on the deployed update; post-hoc constraints would reopen the gap, and the constrained search keeps edits clear of protected knowledge. In large-scale sequential editing on two datasets and three models, DOW-KE achieves the highest overall Score and neighborhood Specificity in five of six model-dataset settings among the evaluated baselines.
AI Engram (Kwon et al., 2026) formalizes the four engram criteria of neuroscience as a constrained inverse problem in weight space and solves it closed-form: concept-specific memory traces become linear objects that can be extracted once and combined arithmetically. Appendix F states the Compositional Memory States Hypothesis: edited models live on "a commutative manifold where the integration of A and B reaches a consistent equilibrium regardless of the learning sequence." The evidence base is single and paired edits -- in materials terms, single-cycle tests, in which fatigue accumulation is structurally invisible. Whether the hypothesis holds under sequential load is exactly the "temporal dynamics" question the paper defers to future work. We run that test on the authors' own reference implementation, at their reported best edit strength (TOFU alpha=0.6, a choice favoring the linearity hypothesis), with pre-registered predictions, across three model charges (two vendors, two architecture families). Four findings replicate across all three: (1) zero-shot composition and sequential re-calibrated editing diverge by 61-71% of the edit magnitude; (2) cut order is not interchangeable, and the effect scales with concept overlap -- in one charge the order of cutting two Paris landmarks decides whether an uninvolved third concept survives; (3) the survivors' layer-input covariances -- the method's own sufficient statistics, read as strain gauges -- drift monotonically with every further cut, in every surviving concept, in every charge; (4) erased knowledge partially returns under subsequent unrelated cuts. Appendix F's commutative-manifold hypothesis is thereby falsified for sequential editing; the single-edit results of the original paper are untouched. For unlearning-as-compliance: erasure certified today does not certify the artifact after its next edit.